determining differences between archival staff and restorers ranking of training topics for disaster...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 09 October 2014, At: 10:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Collection ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcol20

Determining Differences BetweenArchival Staff and Restorers Ranking ofTraining Topics for Disaster RestorationProjectsCraig Evans Passley aa Purdue University, West Lafayette , IndianaPublished online: 08 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Craig Evans Passley (2013) Determining Differences Between Archival Staff andRestorers Ranking of Training Topics for Disaster Restoration Projects, Collection Management, 38:4,267-300, DOI: 10.1080/01462679.2013.836139

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.836139

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcol20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01462679.2013.836139

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.836139

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Collection Management, 38:267–300, 2013Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 0146-2679 print / 1545-2549 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01462679.2013.836139

Determining Differences Between ArchivalStaff and Restorers Ranking of Training Topics

for Disaster Restoration Projects

CRAIG EVANS PASSLEYPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

In the pursuit of new and actionable knowledge, the author con-ducted fieldwork in New Orleans four years following HurricaneKatrina. Since archival staff and restorers can be involved in mod-erate to major catastrophic disasters in archival institutions, dif-ferences in priorities between archival staff and restorers provideinsight into each group’s procedural preferences for ranking train-ing topics. When 185 archival staff and 52 restorer respondentsranked training topics for importance, statistically significant dif-ferences were exhibited in five out of twenty-one training topics(α = .05). Since both groups have different job-specific skills, thereexist reasons for differences in training topic rankings.

KEYWORDS restorer, archival staff, archival material, staff train-ing, disaster restoration project

INTRODUCTION

The poet Frederick Locker-Lampson once commented, “ . . . it is a good thingto read books, and it need not be a bad thing to write them, but it is apious thing to preserve those that have been some time written” (Iiams andBeckwith 1935, 407). Locker-Lampson’s belief still holds true today and hasgained urgency in the wake of past natural and human-made disasters, whichdeeply impacted many archival institutions (Corrigan 2008, Sinclair 2007,Harman 2006, Barkley 2007, Bush and Lunde 2000, Oliver 2003a). Archivalinstitutions (e.g., academic libraries) and society at large lose an opportunityto learn from previous generations when parts of their contents are notrestored after a disaster. Furthermore, academic library contents are unique

© Craig Evans PassleyAddress correspondence to Craig Evans Passley. E-mail: [email protected]

267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

268 C. E. Passley

in that they contain texts of both general and specialized natures to meet theneeds of different university and college departments, the particular interestsof local communities, and the acquisition of materials for special collectionsand archives. The general public often has not fully appreciated the worthof such materials until they were permanently lost as a consequence of suchpast archival institution disasters (Carlson 2005).

New Orleans Archival Institution Disasters

Don Etherington, a conservator, in commenting on the Biblioteca NazionaleCentrale di Firenze post-flood, in 1966, wrote: “The Florence flood becamea catalyst that gave birth to a forum on the subject of book restorationwith open discussions and exchanges of ideas among binders and restorersfrom various countries around the globe” (Etherington 2010, 30–31). Thevery same could be written of Hurricane Katrina and other recent disasters,which have brought about more discussion—but still not enough. In thepursuit of new and actionable knowledge, the author conducted fieldworkin New Orleans, Louisiana, four years following Hurricane Katrina, hopingto discover new insights into archival institution disasters.1

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina set off a series of events thatdestroyed many districts in New Orleans, Louisiana, and the surroundingparishes and states (Brinkley 2007), which led to many archival institutiondisasters and certainty affected many facilities, whose sensitive contents werebadly damaged (Corrigan 2008, Skinner 2007). Because of adverse environ-ments in the facilities, a great number of archival materials were damaged bypoor indoor climate conditions and potentially hazardous water. Althoughmany restorers, with their personnel and equipment, were permitted andallowed to access facilities, some archival staff did not participate in theinitial recovery period for various reasons, the primary cause being safetyrequirements (Skinner 2007).

Past disaster restoration projects in archival institutions provide exam-ples of the differences in procedural preferences occurring between archivalstaff and restorers, while both groups work on a project together. In priorprojects, authors mentioned restorers’ lack of knowledge in archival institu-tion practices (Bush and Lunde 2000, Alleman 1999, Field 2008, Skinner 2007,Diamond 2006); however, the restorers provide important and necessary ex-pertise in water extraction, drying structure, and other job duties. Althougharchival staff know institution policies and practices, their expertise on thedaily management functions required in disaster restoration projects is notequivalent to the restorers’ expertise who, by nature of their job role andduties, work on these projects in different types of building structures (e.g.,homes, office buildings) following disasters. Consequently, the archival staffand restorers can approach archival institution disasters differently becauseof their professional expertise.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Ranking of Training Topics for Disaster Restoration 269

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study’s purpose was to reveal statistically significant differences in thetraining topic rankings between archival staff and restorers in order to bet-ter understand procedural preferences in salvaging. The research questionfocused on which training topics archival staff and restorers exhibit statisti-cally significant differences; the author hypothesized that archival staff andrestorers exhibit statistically significant differences in the training topics cat-egorized under recovery, indoor environment, and processing subject areas.A restorer is defined as a restoration professional who leads and participatesin salvaging and restoring contents to pre-damage conditions in addition toother restoration and reconstruction services. Whereas archival staff includesprofessionals working in different types of archival institutions, restorers in-clude professionals working for various restoration company structures. Sincearchival staff and restorers can be involved in moderate to major catastrophicdisasters in archival institutions, differences in priorities between archivalstaff and restorers provide insight into each group’s procedural preferencesfor ranking training topics.

Based on the themes in fieldwork notes gathered by the author, threesubject areas were set-up for exploration: (1) recovery, (2) indoor envi-ronment, and (3) processing. Later, training topics for each subject areawere developed (see Tables 1 through 3). In 2009 and 2010, three field-work trips to New Orleans provided additional insight into the effects ofnatural and human-made disasters on the facilities and contents. Althoughnatural and human-made disasters can affect archival institutions differently,for the purposes of this study the author did not distinguish between thetwo.

FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

A fieldwork methodology was created consisting of three stages: (1) areasurvey, (2) archival institution survey, and (3) architectural drawing review.

TABLE 1 Recovery Training Topics

Training Topic

1 Stack designs and room layouts in archival institutions.2 Archival material insurance policies.3 Archival material restoration costs.4 Terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in archival institution

emergency response and recovery.5 Restoration worker archival material handling techniques.6 Salvage archival materials immersed in black water (hazardous water).7 Build triage (for damaged archival materials).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

270 C. E. Passley

TABLE 2 Indoor Environment Training Topics

Training Topic

8 Personal protective equipment for restoration workers handlingdamaged archival materials.

9 Identify hazardous chemicals found in archival institutions.10 Control ultraviolet (UV) light and prevent pest damage.11 Pollution control using monitoring devices and software (collect

daily air quality levels in special collections, archives, andtriage).

12 Restorative cleaning and restorative drying archival materialtechniques.

13 Temporary climate control systems for special collections andarchives post-disaster.

14 Interpret and apply indoor environmental professional reportrecommendations.

An area survey is a tour of the locality around an archival institution inorder to assess infrastructures and natural surroundings. When a built envi-ronment is impacted by a disaster, the interior spaces are affected as floodwater, pest, and outdoor air pollution enter through the damaged buildingenvelope—further changing the building ecology. Since most of the archivalinstitutions in New Orleans were impacted by the damaged infrastructuresand flooding affecting the climate indoors, it was important to understandthe outside environment surrounding each New Orleans academic library. Intotal, the Tulane Libraries Recovery Center and the following nine academiclibraries were visited:

• Loyola University New Orleans (J. Edgar and Louise S. Monroe Library)• Tulane University (Howard-Tilton Memorial Library)• Tulane University (Joseph Merrick Jones Hall)

TABLE 3 Processing Training Topics

Training Topic

15 Train local temporary and restoration company workers.16 Webcam(s) in special collections, archives, and triage to

record daily worker activities and security.17 Coordinate off-site temporary storage and drying vendor

shipments.18 Restoration worker and equipment daily productivity.19 Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices on pallets

and packages.20 Handheld electronic devices to label and catalog archival

items.21 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system

re-occupancy checklist (confirm mold remediation andprevent fungal spore re-germination).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


• Tulane University School of Medicine (Rudolph Matas Health SciencesLibrary)

• University of New Orleans (Earl K. Long Library)• Dillard University (Will W. Alexander Library)• Southern University at New Orleans (SUNO; Leonard S. Washington Memo-

rial Library)• Xavier University of Louisiana (Xavier University Library Resource Center)• Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (School of

Dentistry Library)

Archival institution surveys were conducted in the New Orleans aca-demic libraries. This involved a walk-through in and around the facility todetermine potential areas of concern post-disaster that affect mobilization,property drainage system, building envelope, and individual work cycle pat-tern. Notes were taken about the different building envelopes, campus areas(e.g., quads, ponds), facility layouts, special collections and archives—if ac-cessible or available—as well as nearby parks (e.g., Audubon Park).

The New Orleans academic libraries are unique, requiring different sal-vaging procedures due to differences in collections, facility layouts, locations,and staff resources (e.g., disaster plans). For example, Loyola University’sarchivist provided a tour inside the lab, special collections, and archives,which illustrated the various content and material concerns that a restorerwould need to handle in order to salvage contents. Furthermore, discussingHurricanes Katrina and Rita’s (2005) effects on the academic libraries’ specialcollections and archives with Bruce Raeburn, Tulane University’s director ofSpecial Collections and curator of the Hogan Jazz Archive, as well as cor-responding with Andy Corrigan, the associate dean of libraries, and LeonMiller, the head of the Louisiana Research Collection, provided a better per-spective of the challenges of implementing disaster plans.

The architectural drawing review involved studying drawings and meet-ing with archival staff and academic librarians at Tulane University, DillardUniversity, and SUNO. An architectural drawing review is the process oflooking through a library, a museum, a church, a repository, or a recordcenter’s architectural drawings to gather data on exterior wall assemblies,facility mechanical systems, exterior wall penetrations, interior constructionmaterials, floor plans, and roofing systems as well as the window-to-wallratio. These data can provide an understanding into the post-disaster con-ditions occurring in the facility. In this case, the head of the SoutheasternArchitectural Archive brought out architectural drawings of the Howard-Tilton Memorial Library and Joseph Merrick Jones Hall for review. Later, aconversation with Milton G. Scheuermann, Jr., a Tulane University profes-sor of architecture, led to more insights into New Orleans academic librarybuilding designs. These building designs were further discussed in LouisianaBuildings, 1720–1940; The Historic American Building Survey (1997) edited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

272 C. E. Passley

by Jessie Poesch and Barbara SoRelle Bacot. The Dillard University archivesand architectural drawings were not accessible, but the archivist provideda book by Milton G. Scheuermann, Jr. entitled The Architecture of DillardUniversity, 1933–1997 (2002). A discussion with the reference and collec-tion development librarian led to more insights into the Will W. AlexanderLibrary recovery and reconstruction periods. Similarly, a conversation withShatiqua Mosby-Wilson, SUNO’s library director, yielded information aboutLeonard S. Washington Memorial Library post-disaster.

Before and after the fieldwork trips, the author utilized the data gainedfrom the trips themselves as well as from correspondence and discussionswith indoor environmental professionals, industrial hygienists, archival staff,restoration professionals, and academic librarians. For instance, one partic-ular conversation with a restoration professional led to a discussion aboutthe industry standard and reference guides (Institute of Inspection Cleaningand Restoration Certification [IICRC] 2006). These fieldwork trips, correspon-dence, and discussions led to additional perspectives on training topics im-portant for disaster restoration projects in archival institutions, which wereuseful for keyword and phrase searching to support a comprehensive reviewof the literature.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review provides an indication of salvaging procedures usedin past projects. Most cases dealt with moderate to major catastrophic fire-and water-related disasters. Based on prior studies, reports, and learnedlessons from past experiences in archival institutions, this author’s researchon procedural preferences of archival staff and restorers provides a missingelement in the literature. There remains more for archival staff and restorersto learn about when it comes to complexities and circumstances inherent toarchival institution disasters.

Since archival materials stored in special collections and archives aresensitive to changes in the indoor air quality, the amount of time spent sal-vaging all contents from rooms after a disaster is critical to reducing restora-tion cost and secondary damage. Buchanan (1988) wrote “ . . . the faster thecorrect action, the better the result” (Buchanan 1988, 71). In the literature,Buchanan’s belief is generally agreed upon by other authors (Ritzenthaler2010, McGuire 2006, Kahn 2012, Fleischer and Heppner 2009, Barkley 2007,Bernazzani 1998, Dadson 2012, Waters 1993, Silverman 2006a, Morris 1986);hence, the failure to act accordingly can be at the risk of greater losses. In oneparticular case in India, the salvage participants left books and manuscriptsunder water instead of exposing the Sundarayya Vignana Kendram Library’scontents to extreme temperature and humidity levels (Oliver 2003a). Oliverwrote, “For this reason it was suggested that the books remain under water

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


until arrangements to move them into freezers were fully in place” (Oliver2003a, 5). Likewise, Morris (1986) and Buchanan (1988) recommended leav-ing the books in water because this circumstance could minimize moldgrowth. There are many factors that attribute to the time spent salvagingall archival items such as health and safety, equipment, collection, teamproductivity, and salvage method.

Health and Safety

Once an archival institution affected by a disaster is deemed safe to en-ter and conduct salvaging, the salvage participants are subjected to poten-tially hazardous conditions. All personnel are required to abide by local,state, and federal health and safety regulations (Rapp 2011, Dri-Eaz Educa-tion Series 2006, Larsen 2011, IICRC 2006). Although the literature on thehealth and safety issues affecting salvage participants is limited, researchersconducted an epidemiological study on 168 restoration workers (Fondelliet al. 2007). Fondelli et al. stated the workers did not wear personal pro-tective equipment (e.g., gloves, respirators) following a flood disaster. Con-versely, the BMS CAT personnel used a site-specific health and safety planthat incorporated health and safety regulations after a human-made disasterin a government record center (“BMS CAT Completes Work at Texas IRSBuilding” 2010).2 Furthermore, several authors advocate surveying the facil-ity and property to determine potential hazards by conducting jobsite hazardanalyses (Larsen 2011) or risk assessments (Dadson 2012). Dadson suggestsconducting a risk assessment before salvaging and throughout the salvageperiod. The risk assessment should be reevaluated throughout the salvageeffort due to the changing indoor environment (Dadson 2012). Larsen (2011)and Rapp (2011) recommend conducting tool box meetings and discussions;Rapp advocates “ . . . periodic tool box safety discussions to highlight up-coming activities, point out special safety risks for planned work, and advisehow they can be controlled” (Rapp 2011, 163). Salvage participants canreduce health problems by implementing a site-specific health and safetyplan.

Equipment

Salvage participants usually transport damaged, wet contents to freezer fa-cilities using a variety of equipment and vehicles. In the case of the NorwichCentral Library, the archival staff removed documents, the items were trans-ported to Harwell Drying Restoration Services for freeze-drying following afire disaster (Creber 2003).3 In the literature, authors mention various com-panies who offered freezing service; Creber writes “ . . . the rescued itemswere sent by Riley, Dunn[,] and Wilson to Scotland in a refrigerated truck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

274 C. E. Passley

and then put into a deep freeze until they could be individually examined”(p. 194).4 After a steam pipe burst at the Sterling Memorial Library, Kennedynoted that Munters Moisture Control Services (MCS) personnel placed thesoaked items into freezer trucks or the contents “ . . . were dried partially insitu through the dehumidification equipment used by Munters, such as in-dustrial fans and dehumidifiers” (Kennedy 2006, 92).5 Silverman describedsalvage participants delivering a “20-ton tanker-trailer of liquid nitrogen” andblasting wet books with liquid in order to improve the fully loaded refrig-erated tractor trailers’ cooling system efficiency following a flood disasterat the Morgan Library (Silverman 2009, 5). After a flood in New Orleans,Topper stated that Tulane University’s contents were transported in freezertrucks to commercial cold storage facilities (Topper 2011). In the case of theBiblioteka Academie Nauk, Silverman wrote, “Limited freezer space accom-modated only 210,000 volumes, leaving 90% of the damaged collections atrisk from biological attack due to extremely wet conditions existing insidethe soggy building” (Silverman 2008, 28). In their study, Silverman et al.reiterates the importance of freezing wet archival materials, concluding,“ . . . freezing wet books remains essential for delaying mold formation andthereby improving the quality of the recovery by allowing the books to bedried in manageable batches” (Silverman et al. 2008, 9). In the literature,the general rule of thumb is to freeze wet archival materials (e.g., books,manuscripts), although freezer space can be limited or not available.

As stated earlier, damaged archival materials are transported to tempo-rary locations in order to dry the contents near the institution or on site(McGuire 2006, Craig, Selzer, and Seymour 2006, Morris 1989, Lundquist1986, Oliver 2003b). In the case of the Ontario government record center,McGuire describes the Munters MCS personnel setting up an on-site dry-ing facility “ . . . using portable industrial desiccant dehumidifiers” (McGuire2006, 25). Similarly, Craig et al. describe damp documents dried in an on-sitefacility near the Cayman Islands National Archive “ . . . using a large desic-cant dehumidifier and fans to provide low-level humidity air-flow acrossthe documents” (Craig et al. 2006, 197). In their study, Kaplan and Ludwigconcluded, “dehumidification-drying is suitable for damp, not wet materials”(Kaplan and Ludwig 2005, 158).

Additionally, the salvage participants brought in equipment and vehicles(Craig et al., 2006, Morris 1989, Lundquist 1986, Oliver 2003b). The BELFORpersonnel shipped mobile thermal vacuum freeze dryers to several archivalinstitutions because the government officials would not allow archival mate-rials transported out of the country (Craig et al., 2006, Oliver 2003b).6 Morris(1989) and Lundquist (1986) describe the Document Reprocessors personnelloading contents into mobile vacuum freeze-drying chambers.7 In order tosave all archival materials, the salvage participants developed and imple-mented procedures for loading, transporting, freezing, and drying damagedcontents using assorted equipment and vehicles.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Salvaged Collections

During a salvage operation, the salvage participants often handle large num-bers of archival materials. A large percentage of the collection items stored inarchival institutions are books, bound volumes, microfilms, and microfiches(Heritage Preservation 2005). As the examples below indicate, it requiresmany volunteers and knowledgeable professionals to save large quantitiesof damaged materials. After a flood, Corrigan (2008) reported that BELFORpersonnel salvaged approximately 209,894 volumes and 18,269 microfilmreels from Tulane University. In the case of the Meyer Library disaster, thebasement was flooded due to a water main system failure (Morris 1986).Morris indicated that approximately 65 salvage participants removed morethan 50,000 books. According to Bush and Lunde (2000), approximately462,500 volumes were salvaged in the Morgan Library following a flood dis-aster, requiring approximately 100 salvage participants (Silverman 2006b).After a flood, Davis reported that the University of Hawaii’s library staff andvolunteers salvaged more than 60,000 maps, 70,000 aerial photographs, andsalvageable books (Davis 2006). Similarly, after a flood in the city of Prague,“ . . . librarians and volunteers sent 140,000 water-damaged volumes to befrozen . . . ” (Ray 2006, 389). After a fire in the University of Georgia’s MainLibrary, Field (2008) stated a disaster recovery company hired approximately300 temporary workers in order to save collection items. In the rescue oper-ation following the collapse of the Cologne City Archives’ main storage unit,approximately 4,000 salvage participants assisted (Iona and Plassmann 2009).And finally, Olatise reported that 30,000 volumes were salvaged subsequentto an attack on the Egyptian Scientific Institute (Olatise 2012).

Team Productivity

Salvage participants, while handling damp and wet archival materials and nu-merous containers, must complete basic repetitive motions under potentiallyhazardous conditions in a timely manner. Johnson wrote, “In some cases, thenormal need for immediate action is aggravated by the nature of the mate-rials” (Johnson 1963, 249). Paper materials, such as books and manuscripts,increase in weight as the contents absorb water (Waters 1993, Wellheiser andScott 2002, Bernazzani 1998, McCleary 1987, Dadson 2012). In the literature,authors suggested techniques to increase productivity when packing dampand wet contents into containers (Buchanan 1988, Waters 1993, Dadson2012, Kahn 2012, Walsh 1997, Wellheiser and Scott 2002, Lundquist 1986).Although salvage participants’ physical structure, abilities, and stamina aredifferent and variable, they lift, carry, and pass similar loads of containers andare expected to carry items while walking uneven surfaces as well as up anddown stairs (often elevators may be inoperable post-disaster). Also, working

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

276 C. E. Passley

together, two salvage participants can carry oversized contents on top of alarge flat surface material (Balloffet 1992, Walsh 1997, Buchanan 1988, Well-heiser and Scott 2002). Dadson writes, “The prolonged and repetitive natureof salvage manual handling can also prove problematic, even if all the loadsbeing transported are within safe limits” (Dadson 2012, 102). Consequently,the salvage participants can become exhausted while performing salvagework (Dadson 2012, Waters 1993, Kahn 2012, Beales 2003). A few authorssuggested rotating crew members in an effort to reduce worker exhaustion(Silverman 2004, Waters 1993, Beales 2003). According to Dadson, “Dou-bling the number of people helping with salvage will double the work rate,although they will need to be briefed, equipped[,] and trained if they are notexpert” (Dadson 2012, 118). Ultimately, the team productivity can affect theamount of containers filled and removed each day. A better understandingof the basic repetitive motions used in performing salvage work can leadtoward improvements in team productivity.

Salvage Methods

There is quite a bit of variation in salvage methods, and their respectiveproductivity, reported in the literature. Dadson presents data on several sal-vage methods: (1) crating, (2) bagging, then crating, and (3) bandaging,bagging, then crating (Dadson 2012). For example, the author illustrates thatcrating one book can take 9 seconds, while crating 20 books took 3 min-utes (Dadson 2012, 117). However, Dadson did not present data on thetime differences between the crating methods and other salvage methodssuch as a human chain or a book chute. She did state, however, that thebook chute method is not ideal for “wet or damaged items” (Dadson 2012,121). Crating, human chain, and book chute salvage methods were usedor discussed during salvage exercises at the Canterbury Cathedral Archivesand Library (Forbes 2003). The Kent Fire Brigade, Document SOS person-nel, and Canterbury staff conducted on-site salvage exercises in order toprepare for an actual fire disaster.8 For instance, Forbes describes the ra-tionale applied in selecting either crating or creating a human chain fromthe stacks to Document SOS’s triage area, using fire fighters as well as thearchival and library staff (Forbes 2003). Forbes writes “The distance was toogreat for a human chain, but by working in relay we avoided the prob-lem of having to reassess the weight of each box or crate as it passedfrom person to person” (193). Numerous authors suggest the human chainmethod, since this method is effective in removing contents from the af-fected areas quickly (Waters 1993, Balloffet 1992, Forston 1992, Buchanan1988). In many past disasters, the salvage participants removed archival ma-terials either by working individually within a salvage crew (Barkley 2007,Harman 2006, Corrigan 2008, Bush and Lunde 2000) or by creating a humanchain (Oliver 2003a, Sinclair 2007, Silverman 2006a). Other removal methods

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


include a conveyor belt (Waters 1993, Buchanan 1988, Barkley 2007, Silver-man 2009, Wellheiser and Scott 2002) or a crane (Buchanan 1988, Lundquist1986). Balloffet suggests removing contents from the affected areas usingbook trucks and dollies. Future studies on time and motion studies relatedto productivity performing salvage methods would offer insights into teamproductivity.

Hurricane Katrina

The procedures of salvaging materials after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 pro-vide good examples of the varied procedures implemented in New Or-leans institutions to save archival materials. In the New Orleans NotarialArchives, the Munters MCS personnel hand-carried the books following aflood disaster (Harman 2006). Eddy Pokluda, Munters MCS national busi-ness development manager and the Notarial Archives project coordinator,commented “We had to use one type of low-temperature trailer for sub-merged books and needed others with ambient control for the books notsubmerged” (Harman 2006, 5). According to Corrigan, the BELFOR personnelplaced salvaged contents into waterproof bags (Corrigan 2010) and carriedcollection items in large sacks at Tulane University (Corrigan 2008). Topper(2011) mentioned that Tulane University’s contents were transported to fa-cilities located in several states for multiple processes and treatments suchas gamma radiation. Also, Munters MCS personnel used gamma radiationon New Orleans Notarial Archives’ damaged contents (Harman 2006). LanceQuery, Tulane University’s dean of Libraries and Academic Information Re-sources, noted the value of a triage operation with archival staff supervis-ing other salvage participants (Diamond 2006). Skinner also discusses theimportance of collaboration and supervision. He writes, “Be prepared touse your staff to supervise, guide, and assist an inexperienced company asit deals with your building and the contents” (Skinner 2007, 185). In thecase of SUNO, Linda Hill, curator and archivist, led the salvage effort andsaved 728 collection items (Hill 2007). Later, these items received anoxicfumigation because of insect infestation and mold growth; gamma radia-tion at specific dosages can be used on certain materials (Cortella et al.2011). Although the literature on pests damaging archival materials post-disaster is limited, one author noted that insects can be harmful to cellulose-based materials after a disaster (Kahn 2012). In New Orleans, Formosansubterranean termites are a concern while salvaging cellulose-based materi-als (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005) because “ . . . floods donot eliminate termite colonies . . . ” (Owens et al. 2012, 521). The archivalinstitution disasters post-Katrina provide important examples of the variedprocedures implemented by salvage participants in order to save archivalmaterials.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

278 C. E. Passley

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study’s research design consisted of four parts: (1) question develop-ment, (2) data collection, (3) quantitative analysis, and (4) qualitative analy-sis. In prior studies of disaster restoration and reconstruction management,researchers used an online survey questionnaire (Rapp and Baroudi 2013,Rapp and Pan 2010), and a survey instrument used in a prior study by Rappand Pan was adapted for use of this study. Approval from Purdue University’sInstitutional Review Board was obtained prior to survey package distribution.

Sample Population

The sample population included archival staff and restorers who work in theUnited States and countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Theseprofessionals consisted of archival staff and restorers found in professionalassociation membership online databases, such as IICRC’s Locate a Pro, theRestoration Industry Association’s (RIA) Find a Member, and the AmericanInstitute for Conservation’s Find a Conservator. In addition to professional as-sociations, archival staff were found in colleges and universities listed in TheBest 373 Colleges (Princeton Review 2011) and the 2011 College Handbook(College Board 2011). Using the online search engine Google, additionalarchival staff e-mail addresses were found in directories listed in academiclibraries and museums, as well as religious, public, and private organizations(e.g., the Academy of Certified Archivists, the Society of American Archivists,and the Council of State Archivists). Whereas the majority of the archivalstaff participants were located in The Best 373 Colleges and the 2011 CollegeHandbook, the majority of the restorers were found in the IICRC’s Locate aPro. The final sample population consisted of 2,837 archival staff and 450restorers and was created using e-mail addresses.

Survey Questionnaire Distribution and Respondents

Initially, 3,287 survey packages were distributed using Qualtrics Labs, Inc.,software, version 24767 of the Qualtrics Research Suite © 2011. The initialparticipation response from the restorers was low compared to the archivalstaff. In order to boost the responses from restorers, participants were re-cruited by telephone and e-mail as well as an online survey participantrequest posting, garnering an additional 155 restorer survey packages. Theparticipant requests were posted on the RIA LinkedIn group site, the ICSCleaning Specialist’s online bulletin board, and the Restoration Forum web-site. In the end, the total distribution of survey packages equaled 3,442, with82% delivered to archival staff and 18% delivered to restorers. Only completeonline survey questionnaires were considered, of which 78% were archivalstaff (n = 185) and 22% were restorers (n = 52).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


A quantitative analysis was dependent on a sufficient number of re-spondents. The output for this study was generated using Qualtrics, whichrecorded 340 total participants. However, some participants did not completethe online survey questionnaire. Only participants who answered questionone and completed all training topic questions were selected for the quanti-tative analysis. However, all full and partial responses from the three open-ended questions were included in the qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

The archival staff and restorer respondents consisted of six subgroups (seeFigure 1). The archivists represented 66% of the total sample population(157 respondents). This result was not surprising, since a large number ofthe participants were archivists. In contrast, the restorer participants weremore equally proportioned among the three subgroups; however, projectmanagers represented a greater number of the job titles listed in restorationcompany personnel directories. Nonetheless, the project coordinators andsenior project managers represented the second highest subgroup population(28 respondents or 12%).

The online survey questionnaires were distributed to archival staff andrestorers working in archival institutions or restoration companies throughout

FIGURE 1 Respondent subgroups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

280 C. E. Passley

FIGURE 2 Respondent regions.

the United States and several foreign countries. Generally, the geographicalareas with higher populations usually have more archival institutions andrestoration companies than the geographical areas with lower populations.Figure 2 shows that 30% of the archival staff respondents work in the North-east U.S. region (55 respondents). In contrast, a large majority of the restorerrespondents work in the North Central U.S. region (16 respondents or 31%).The archival staff and restorer respondents are represented in each region.

The archival staff and restorer respondents completed different levelsof education and degree majors. Generally, a student pursuing a career inan archival institution is required to complete a master’s degree in a rele-vant major to the job role (Schwarzer 2010, Shepherd 2010). Thus, it wasnot surprising that 82% of the archival staff respondents completed a mas-ter’s degree (152 respondents; see Figure 3). In contrast, 45% of the restorerrespondents completed a bachelor’s degree (23 respondents). A bachelor’sdegree is adequate for a person pursuing a project management or project su-perintendent position (Larsen 2011). Unfortunately, a student cannot earn anassociate, bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree in restoration or cleaningbecause these degrees are not offered in universities and colleges (Griffin2012). Perhaps cleaning and restoration companies should actively recruit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 3 Education level of respondents.

undergraduate and graduate students who complete a degree major relevantto specific industry and business needs (Spivak 2009). Nevertheless, a highschool diploma is an acceptable minimum level of education for jobsite po-sitions (e.g., project manager, project superintendent, document technician)in addition to industry certification (Larsen 2011).

The library science category was added to the results of the highest de-gree major due to the large number of related degrees entered in the “other”category by the archival staff respondents. Figure 4 shows the archival staffrespondents completed 39% of their degrees in humanities (72 respondents)and 38% of their degrees in library science (69 respondents). In contrast,42% of the restorer respondents completed a business degree (18 respon-dents). The formal education differences between archival staff and restorerrespondents can be attributed to the level of education as well as the degreemajors deemed appropriate for students interested in pursuing professionsin archival institutions or restoration companies.

The archival staff and restorer respondents accumulated many years ofpractical experience. A professional’s practical experiences can be a fac-tor in obtaining a job position in an archival institution (Shepherd 2010,Schwarzer 2010) or restoration company (Larsen 2011). It should be notedthat archival staff perform their job duties on a regular basis in archival insti-tutions, whereas the restorers enter these facilities post-disaster in order toperform their job duties per contract. Figure 5 shows that a large majority

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

282 C. E. Passley

FIGURE 4 Highest degree major of respondents.

FIGURE 5 Respondent work experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 6 Cerification of respondents. Note: Restoration Industry Association (RIA); Instituteof Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC); Indoor Air Quality Association(IAQA)

of archival staff respondents have 20 years or more of work experience (70respondents or 38%). In contrast, a majority of restorer respondents workedat least 6 years but less than 12 years (18 respondents or 35%). Archivalstaff and restorer respondents offered diverse perspectives because a greatnumber of them are seasoned professionals.

The restorer respondents earned more certifications (92%) than thearchival staff respondents (27%). Figure 6 shows that restorer respondentscompleted an IICRC certification at a higher rate than other certificationsand that 44% of the restorer respondents completed an IICRC certification(37 respondents). This result is not surprising, since a great number of re-storer participants are found in the IICRC’s Locate a Pro. One reason forthe restorer respondents completing certifications at a high percentage thanarchivists could be attributed to the absence of cleaning and restoration de-grees offered. Although 133 archival staff respondents did not complete acertification, 20% of the archival staff respondents are classified as a cer-tified archivist (36 respondents). Last, all respondents indicated interest incertifications related to their job role.

Quantitative Analysis Results

This study used a multivariate analysis of variance to test differences betweenthe 185 archival staff and 52 restorer respondents’ training topics rankings,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

284 C. E. Passley

TABLE 4 Recovery Training Topics with Statistically Significant Differences Between ArchivalStaff and Restorer Respondents: Mean and Standard Deviation

Archival Staff RestorersTraining Topic Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Sig. Diff.

1. Stack designs and roomlayouts in archivalinstitutions.

4.62 1.26 4.71 1.14 0.64

2. Archival materialinsurance policies.

4.36 1.32 5.02 1.18 0.00∗

3. Archival materialrestoration costs.

4.92 1.12 5.13 1.07 0.23

4. Terms, acronyms, andabbreviations used inarchival institutionemergency response andrecovery.

4.75 1.14 4.63 1.27 0.53

5. Restoration workerarchival materialhandling techniques.

5.59 0.81 5.54 0.92 0.67

6. Salvage archival materialsimmersed in black water(hazardous water).

5.26 1.00 5.35 1.01 0.61

7. Build triage (for damagedarchival materials).

5.59 0.84 5.29 0.98 0.03∗

∗p < .05.

using a 6-point scale. The outcomes of the quantitative analysis derived fromStatistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software (version 18.0) wasthe methodological bases for testing the research hypothesis. The surveyasked participants to rank the importance of each training topic from veryunimportant to very important for restoration professionals to learn prior toentering an archival institution post-disaster. The training topics are cate-gorized under one of three relevant subject areas: (1) Recovery, (2) IndoorEnvironment, and (3) Processing. Both archival staff and restorer respondentsranked training topics 1 through 7, which are related to the category Recov-ery, at least somewhat important to learn (see Table 4). The archival staffand restorer respondents ranked training topics related to salvage manualhandling (training topics 5 and 6) and triaging (training topic 7) higher thantraining topics related to learning terms, acronyms, abbreviations, stack de-signs, and room layouts. It is not surprising the restorer respondents rankedarchival material insurance policies and archival material restoration coststraining topics higher than the archival staff respondents because both train-ing topics are more inherent to a manager’s role than a supervisor’s role.

Table 5 shows that archival staff and restorer respondents ranked train-ing topics 8 through 14, in the category of Indoor Environment, at leastsomewhat important to learn. Both archival staff and restorer respondentsfavored training topics related to health and safety (training topics 8 and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 5 Indoor Environment Training Topics with Statistically Significant Differences Be-tween Archival Staff and Restorer Respondents: Mean and Standard Deviation


8. Personal protectiveequipment forrestoration workershandling damagedarchival materials.

5.41 0.82 5.63 0.72 0.08

9. Identify hazardouschemicals found inarchival institutions.

5.38 0.96 5.62 0.66 0.10

10. Control ultraviolet (UV)light and prevent pestdamage.

5.13 0.97 4.83 1.84 0.06

11. Pollution control usingmonitoring devices andsoftware (collect dailyair quality levels inspecial collections,archives, and triage).

4.93 0.98 5.08 1.10 0.35

12. Restorative cleaning andrestorative dryingarchival materialtechniques.

5.54 0.79 5.56 0.94 0.89

13. Temporary climatecontrol systems forspecial collections andarchives post-disaster.

5.50 0.87 5.50 0.94 0.99

14. Interpret and applyindoor environmentalprofessional reportrecommendations.

4.62 1.08 5.12 0.98 0.00∗

∗p < .05.

9), restoration (training topic 12), and stabilization (training topic 13). Thearchival staff respondents ranked a training topic on controlling ultravioletlight and preventing pest damage higher than the restorer respondents. Thisresult is not surprising because archival staff commonly monitor the indoorenvironments because light and pests (e.g., insects, rodents) can damagearchival materials. In practice, this difference can cause a problem betweenarchival staff and restorers, especially if the disaster occurs in a museum.In addition, the restorer respondents ranked training topics related to mon-itoring devices (training topic 11) as well as interpreting and applying in-door environmental professional report recommendations (training topic 14)higher than the archival staff respondents. These results were expected, sincerestorers use different monitoring devices regularly in order to update andcomplete the project monitoring logs as well as other job duties. Also, Larsen(2011) and IICRC (2006) recommend restorers contact a specialized expert

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

286 C. E. Passley

TABLE 6 Processing Training Topics with Statistically Significant Differences BetweenArchival Staff and Restorer Respondents: Mean and Standard Deviation


15. Train local temporaryand restorationcompany workers.

5.09 0.88 4.92 1.06 0.25

16. Webcam(s) in specialcollections, archives,and triage to recorddaily worker activitiesand security.

3.85 1.13 4.17 1.20 0.08

17. Coordinate off-sitetemporary storage anddrying vendorshipments.

5.14 0.89 5.02 0.98 0.40

18. Restoration worker andequipment dailyproductivity.

4.22 1.06 4.87 1.25 0.00∗

19. Global PositioningSystem (GPS) trackingdevices on pallets andpackages.

3.67 1.15 4.02 1.29 0.06

20. Handheld electronicdevices to label andcatalog archival items.

4.10 1.05 4.50 1.29 0.02∗

21. Heating, Ventilating,and Air Conditioning(HVAC) systemre-occupancy checklist(confirm moldremediation and preventfungal sporere-germination).

5.36 0.87 5.50 0.75 0.28

∗p < .05.

(e.g., indoor environmental professional), when circumstances exceed theirexpertise to perform a service.

Related to the category of Processing, the archival staff and restorerrespondents ranked training topics 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 at least some-what important to learn (see Table 6). Table 6 indicates that archival staffrespondents favored the training topic on teaching local temporary andrestoration company workers. In practice, archival staff need workers withproper training in handling and packing all archival materials because re-ducing secondary damage and maintaining organization of collection items,in each phase, are major concerns post-disaster. Although the archival staffrespondents ranked a training topic on handheld electronic devices (trainingtopic 20) as somewhat important to learn, they did not find much impor-tance in learning training topics on webcams (training topic 16) and global

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


positioning systems (training topic 19). Archival staff prefer to supervisesalvage participants in each phase and inspection stage instead of usingwebcams or similar surveillance technology. Similarly, archival staff preferdeveloping site-specific protocols for assessing and organizing their collec-tion items by call numbers, location numbers, or temporary identificationclassifications using labels, sheets, and logs instead of global positioningsystems or similar tracking technology. On the other hand, an acceptanceof handheld electronic device technology most likely originated subsequentto the Dalhousie University Law Library disaster, when library staff workedtogether with Document Reprocessors personnel in the implementation ofRadioShack R© Model 100 portable computers (Lundquist 1986). Generally,archival staff are not opposed to using technology in order to return anarchival institution to pre-disaster conditions, but indicate that they like somehands-on monitoring.

Qualitative Analysis Results

The three open-ended questions illustrated differences between archivalstaff and restorers on subjects mentioned in the literature. Both groupscommented equally in proportion to their representative sample size. Con-tent themes and trends were analyzed to determine differences between thearchival staff and restorer responses.

The first open-ended question, “Which books, articles, and studieswould you like in a bibliography for an Archival Disaster Restoration Bodyof Knowledge?” elucidated data to better understand the literature necessaryfor a bibliography in archival disaster restoration. The archival staff respon-dents listed authors who wrote books related to library disaster planning,emergency management, and preservation, whereas the restorer respondentslisted industry guides as well as a trade magazine. Furthermore, the archivalstaff respondents favored public and private organizations who publish lit-erature on or about issues affecting archival institutions. Not surprisingly,archival staff and restorer respondents each preferred the literature mostrelated to their job roles.

The second open-ended question, “Which archival materials andchemicals are unsafe for restoration professionals and restoration work-ers entering and handling items stored in special collections andarchives, after smoke and fire, water loss, and microbial disasters?”was posed to better understand which items restoration professionalsshould be cautious of handling post-disaster. Although the archival staffrespondents provided multiple responses on archival materials, chemicals,and lab equipment, the restorer respondents did not provide a sufficientamount of responses in order to derive themes and trends. A reason for thisresult could be attributed to archival staff’s depth of knowledge in emergencyresponse and preparedness procedures for archival institutions. Moreover,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

288 C. E. Passley

the archival staff respondents named music, film, and photograph collectionitems such as nitrate films, old audio tapes, older films, and photographs. Thearchival staff respondents’ awareness of the potential hazards associated withthese types of materials is due to the amount of information on this subjectmatter covered in their preferred literature. Further, both archival staff andrestorer respondents provided similar responses for several chemicals andbuilding materials. The responses indicate that archival staff respondentsexhibited a better understanding of the hazardous chemicals and archivalmaterials stored in archival institutions.

The final open-ended question, “Which equipment, tools, or suppliesshould restoration professionals include in their general tool bag or vehi-cle for archival disaster restoration in special collections and archives, aftersmoke and fire, water loss, and microbial disasters?” identified which itemsrestoration professionals should carry in their general tool bag or vehicle tohandle archival institution disasters. Responses indicated that archival staffand restorer respondents prefer different small tools; the archival staff re-spondents listed small tools such as micro spatulas and tweezers, whereasthe restorer respondents named small tools such as thermal image cameras,damp meters, and moisture meters as important. Small equipment yieldeddifferences as well: Archival staff respondents named small equipment suchas fans, hand trucks, and book trucks, while restorer respondents listedsmall equipment such as salt hill dryers and laser tape measures. Not sur-prisingly, archival staff and restorer respondents preferred different medium-sized equipment; restorers listed medium equipment such as air scrubbers,negative high-efficiency particulate air machines, and extraction systems,while the archival staff named medium equipment such as dehumidifiersand high-efficiency particulate air vacuums. Further, the archival staff re-spondents favored general supplies useful in interleaving. This result is notunexpected, since many authors affiliated with archival institutions suggestedinterleaving with different absorbent materials. Similarities in responses be-tween archival staff and restorer respondents were noted in their choiceof cleaning products, personal protective equipment, and recording instru-ments. The dissimilarities between archival staff and restorer respondentscan be attributed to their awareness and their respective preferences ofequipment, tools, and general supplies they find useful in archival institutiondisasters.

CONCLUSION

The author hypothesized that archival staff and restorers exhibit statisticallysignificant differences in the training topics found in recovery, indoor envi-ronment, and processing subject areas. This study confirms the hypothesis:Most differences in training topic rankings are related to how both groups

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


approach archival institution disasters. Furthermore, the archival staff andrestorer respondents’ ranking of training topics are associated with theirdiffering professional expertise as a result of acquired education, work ex-perience, and certification. The hypothesis was proven partially correct whenp value was set at α = .05; the groups exhibited statistically significant dif-ferences in these five training topics:

• Archival material insurance policies (.00).• Build triage (for damaged archival materials; .03).• Interpret and apply indoor environmental professional report recommen-

dations (.00).• Restoration worker and equipment daily productivity (.00).• Handheld electronic devices to label and catalog archival items (.02).

In practice, archival staff and restorers exhibit different priorities andconcerns due to their differing job roles and duties in archival institutionsafter natural and human-made disasters. Since both groups have job-specificskills, reasons for differences in training topic rankings were expected. Ide-ally, while each group has unique areas of experience, it would be verybeneficial if certain skill sets applied during a recovery operation were thesame. If both groups acquire more skill sets, recovery operations would runmore smoothly and efficiently.

Based on the five training topics that exhibited statistically significantdifferences, a summary of these differences are discussed below:

Archival Material Insurance Policies

When insurance is available to provide coverage for materials, archival staffrated this training topic as important for restorers to learn in order for themto create a cost analysis for restoring damaged contents. Restorers foundit important to learn this training topic in order to understand insurancecoverage policies.

Build Triage (for Damaged Archival Materials)

Archival staff rated this training topic as important for restorers to learnbecause a temporary on-site work area provides the institution with intellec-tual control during documentation and other activities before materials areshipped to contractors, vendors, and specialists. Restorers found it importantto learn this training topic in order to offer another service for the archivalinstitutions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

290 C. E. Passley

Interpret and Apply Indoor Environmental Professional ReportRecommendations

Archival staff rated this training topic as important for restorers to learn inorder for them to correct problems so that restricted areas can be reopenedas soon as possible. Restorers found it important to learn this training topicin order to minimize risks and liabilities associated with safety and healthregulations.

Restoration Worker and Equipment Daily Productivity

Archival staff rated this training topic as important for restorers to learn inorder for them to save all archival materials. Restorers found it importantto learn this training topic because they want to work efficiently insideand outside the facility in order to complete the project scope with theirworkforce and equipment.

Handheld Electronic Devices to Label and Catalog Archival Items

Archival staff rated this training topic as important for restorers to learnbecause properly documenting the salvageable and unsalvageable contentsreduces the amount of time spent reshelving and reorganizing. Restorersfound it important to learn this training topic in order to improve contentmanagement and job folder documentation.

Recommendation

Future research should develop workshops using this study’s training top-ics. The workshops should be facilitated by group leaders in their archivalinstitutions. Attendees should include archival staff, restorers who work forrestoration companies listed in the institution’s disaster plans, and restorerswho work for local restoration companies. These workshops would allowattendees an opportunity to apply learning at the facility prior to an actualdisaster restoration project. Furthermore, these workshops would providearchival staff and restorers the opportunity to exchange and share knowl-edge, thus narrowing the knowledge gap.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks the members of his committee: Professor Randy R. Rapp(advisor), Professor Daphene C. Koch, and Dr. Lila C. Albin. In addition,he thanks Dr. Jennifer L. Thompson for resources and guidance with thestatistical analysis and testing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


NOTES

1. In 2008, the Department of Building Construction Management head and specialist leader withindustry support developed a specialized degree concentration in Disaster Restoration and ReconstructionManagement (DRRM; Cox 2008, Cox and Rapp 2009). Over a 3-year period, the author created a field ofstudy related to DRRM and archival institution disasters.

2. BMS CAT is a disaster restoration company.3. Harwell Drying Restoration Services is a document restoration specialist.4. Riley, Dunn, and Wilson is a commercial binding company.5. Munters MCS is a disaster restoration and humidity control company.6. BELFOR is a disaster recovery and property restoration company.7. Document Reprocessors is a wet document restoration company.8. Document SOS is a disaster recovery and restoration company.

REFERENCES

Alleman, Steve. 1999. “Coping With an Outbreak of Mold.” LLA Bulletin 61 (4):217–20.

Balloffet, Nelly. 1992. Library Disaster Handbook: Planning, Recovery, Resources.Highland, NY: Southeastern New York Library Resources Council.

Barkley, Dan. 2007. “The University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library Fire.” DttP:Documents to the People 35 (3): 28–30.

Beales, Donna L. 2003. “Before Disaster Strikes: Essentials of Formulating a LibraryEmergency Management Plan.” Journal of Hospital Librarianship 3 (4): 11–24.doi:10.1300/J186v03n04_03

Bernazzani, Dan. 1998. “Saving Paper-Based Collections.” Restoration Indus-try Association 1–2. http://www.restorationindustry.org/files/Saving%20Paper-Based%20Collections.pdf

“BMS CAT Completes Work at Texas IRS Building.” 2010. Restoration & Remediation,1–2, August 11.

Brinkley, Douglas. 2007. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, andthe Mississippi Gulf Coast. New York: Harper Perennial.

Buchanan, Sally A. 1988. Disaster Planning, Preparedness and Recovery for Librariesand Archives: A RAMP Study with Guidelines. Paris: General Information Pro-gramme and UNISIST. 1–90.

Bush, Carmel, and Diane Lunde. 2000. “The Disaster-Recovery Process for Collec-tions.” In Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, edited by CamilaAlire, 57–90. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Carlson, Scott. 2005. “Mold and Muck Threaten Library Collections.” The Chronicleof Higher Education 52 (4): A22.

College Board. 2011. 2011 College Handbook. 48th ed. New York: College Board.Corrigan, Andy. 2008. “Disaster: Response and Recovery at a Major Research Li-

brary in New Orleans.” Library Management 29 (4/5): 293–306. doi:10.1108/01435120810869084

Corrigan, Andy. 2010. “Case 3: Tulane University: Hurricane Katrina.” In Comprehen-sive Guide to Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery, edited by FrancesC. Wilkinson, Linda K. Lewis, and Nancy K. Dennis, 117–27. Chicago: AmericanLibrary Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

292 C. E. Passley

Cortella, Laurent, Quoc Khoi Tran, Wojciech Jerzy Gluszewski, Ioan Valentin Moise,and Corneliu Catalin Ponta. 2011. Nuclear Techniques for Preservation of Cul-tural Heritage Artefacts. In IAEA Technical Cooperation Project–REF 8015: UsingNuclear Techniques for the Characterization and Preservation of Cultural Her-itage Artefacts in the European Region. Vienna, Austria: International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA). 1–44.

Cox, Robert F. 2008. “Purdue University’s Disaster Restoration Specialization toRaise the Bar in Education and the Industry.” Restoration & Remediation June:22–5.

Cox, Robert F., and Randy R. Rapp. 2009. “Disaster Restoration and Reconstruc-tion Management Moves Ahead at Purdue.” Restoration & Remediation Septem-ber/October: 20–3.

Craig, Roger, Tamara Selzer, and Josette Seymour. 2006. “There is Disaster Planningand There is Reality—The Cayman Islands National Archive (CINA) Experi-ence With Hurricane Ivan.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 27 (2): 187–99.doi:10.1080/00379810601081396

Creber, John. 2003. “Aftermath-Service Continuity and Recovery.” In Disaster Man-agement for Libraries and Archives, edited by Graham Matthews and JohnFeather, 191–211. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Dadson, Emma. 2012. Emergency Planning and Response for Libraries, Archives andMuseums. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Davis, Lynn A. 2006. “Riding the Surf: Dealing With Library Disasters in Is-land Communities.” Public Library Quarterly 25 (3/4): 99–112. doi:10.1300/J118v25n03_09

Diamond, Tom. 2006. “The Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Three LouisianaAcademic Libraries: A Response From Library Administrators and Staff.” LibraryAdministration & Management 20 (4): 192–200.

Dri-Eaz Education Series. 2006. New Guide to Restorative Drying. Burlington, WA:Dri-Eaz Products, Inc.

Etherington, Don. 2010. Bookbinding & Conservation: A Sixty-Year Odyssey of Artand Craft. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. The ABC’s of Returning to FloodedBuildings. In Hurricane Katrina Recovery Advisory: U.S. Department of Home-land Security. November. 1–3.

Field, Susan C. 2008. “Fire in the University of Georgia Libraries.” DttP: Documentsto the People 36 (3): 20–6.

Fleischer, S. V., and Mark J. Heppner. 2009. “Disaster Planning for Libraries andArchives: What You Need to Know and How to Do It.” Library & ArchivalSecurity 22 (2): 125–40. doi:10.1080/01960070902904167

Fondelli, M. C., Adele S. Costantini, M. Ercolanelli, Anna M. Pizzo, Simona A. Maltoni,and Margaret M. Quinn. 2007. “Exposure to Carcinogens and Mortality in aCohort of Restoration Workers of Water-Damaged Library Materials Followingthe River Arno Flooding in Florence, 4 November 1966.” La Medicina del Lavoro98 (5): 422–31.

Forbes, Heather. 2003. “Preparation, Prevention and Practice: Attempting to AvoidDisasters at Canterbury Cathedral Archives.” Journal of the Society of Archivists24 (2): 189–97. doi:10.1080/0037981032000127043

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Forston, Judith. 1992. Disaster Planning and Recovery: A How-To-Do-It Manual forLibrarians and Archivists. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Griffin, William R. 2012. “Training, Certification & Standards.” Cleanfax April 27:1–4.

Harman, Patricia L. 2006. “Preserving Priceless Documents Damaged by Katrina.”Cleaning & Restoration 43 (4): 2–7.

Heritage Preservation. 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Reporton the State of America’s Collections. Washington, DC: Heritage Preservationand the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 1–184.

Hill, Linda. 2007. “Saving Southern University’s Anthropological Collection.” NewOrleans Historical & Cultural Review 1 (1): 66–9.

Iiams, Thomas M., and Theodore D. Beckwith. 1935. “Notes on the Causes andPrevention of Foxing in Books.” The Library Quarterly 5 (4): 407–18.

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC). 2006. IICRCS500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration.3rd ed. Vancouver, WA: IICRC.

Iona, Georgia, and Max Plassmann. 2009. “The Collapse of the Cologne CityArchives.” International Preservation News 49: 19–22.

Johnson, Edward M. 1963. Protecting the Library and Its Resources. Chicago: Ameri-can Library Association.

Kahn, Miriam B. 2012. Disaster Response and Planning for Libraries. 3rd ed. Chicago:American Library Association.

Kaplan, Hilary A., and Kathleen A. Ludwig. 2005. “Comparison of DryingMethods.” In Preparing for the Worst, Planning for the Best: Protectingour Cultural Heritage from Disaster, edited by Sjoerd Koopman, 149–62.Hague, Netherlands: International Federation of Library Associations andInstitutions.

Kennedy, Tara D. 2006. “Steamy Situation: Water Emergency in Sterling MemorialLibrary.” Public Library Quarterly 25 (3/4): 89–97. doi:10.1300/J118v25n03_08

Larsen, Ken. 2011. Leadership in Restorative Drying. 2nd ed. Wood Dale, IL: Restora-tion Leadership Institute.

Lundquist, Eric G. 1986. Salvage of Water Damaged Books, Documents, Micrographicand Magnetic Media. San Francisco: Document Reprocessors of San Francisco.

McCleary, John 1987. Vacuum Freeze-Drying, A Method Used to Salvage Water-Damaged Archival and Library Materials: A RAMP Study with Guidelines. Paris:General Information Programme and UNISIST. 1–63.

McGuire, Thomas. 2006. “Document Restoration Saves Vital Records When Water-Damaged.” Southwestern Archivist 29 (1): 22–5.

Morris, John. 1986. The Library Disaster Preparedness Handbook. Chicago: AmericanLibrary Association.

Morris, John. 1989. “Restoring Water-Logged Books.” Cleaning & Restoration Novem-ber: 6–9.

Olatise, Olubukola. 2012. Disaster Planning in Nigerian Libraries: Understandingthe Need. Saarbrucken, Deutschland/Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Pub-lishing.

Oliver, Marshall. 2003a. “Saving the Irreplaceable.” Cleaning & Restoration 40 (3):2–8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

294 C. E. Passley

Oliver, Marshall. 2003b. “Saving the Irreplaceable–Part 2.” Cleaning & Restoration40 (4): 2–6.

Owens, Carrie B., Nan-Yao Su, Claudia Husseneder, Claudia Riegel, and Ken-neth S. Brown. 2012. “Molecular Genetic Evidence of Formosan Subter-ranean Termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) Colony Survivorship After ProlongedInundation.” Journal of Economic Entomology 105 (2): 518–22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC11150

Princeton Review. 2011. The Best 373 Colleges. http://www.princetonreview.com/rankingsbest.aspx

Rapp, Randy R. 2011. Disaster Recovery Project Management: Bringing Order FromChaos. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Rapp, Randy R., and Bassam Baroudi. 2013. “What Makes a Leader?” Cleaning &Restoration 50 (1):10–5.

Rapp, Randy R., and Jing Pan. 2010. “Disaster Restoration Professional Body ofKnowledge.” International Journal of Construction Education and Research 6:202–18. doi:10.1080/15578771.2010.507620

Ray, Emily. 2006. “The Prague Library Floods of 2002: Crisis and Experimentation.”Libraries & the Cultural Record 41 (3): 381–91.

Ritzenthaler, Mary L. 2010. Preserving Archives and Manuscripts. 2nd ed. Chicago:Society of American Archivists.

Schwarzer, Marjorie. 2010. “Careers and Education in Museum Work.” In En-cyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, edited by Marcia J. Batesand Mary N. Maack, 785–90. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Shepherd, Elizabeth. 2010. “Archival Science.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Infor-mation Sciences, edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary N. Maack, 179–91. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Silverman, Randy. 2004. “A Litany of ‘Terrible, No Good, Very Bad’ Things That CanHappen After the Disaster.” International Preservation News 33: 8–15.

Silverman, Randy. 2006a. “The Seven Deadly Sins of Disaster Recovery.” PublicLibrary Quarterly 25 (3/4): 31–46. doi:10.1300/J118v25n03_04

Silverman, Randy. 2006b. “Toward a National Disaster Response Protocol.” Libraries& the Cultural Record 41 (4): 497–511.

Silverman, Randy. 2008. “Biblioteka Academie Nauk Fire: Twenty Years On.” Inter-national Preservation News 45: 27–9.

Silverman, Randy. 2009. “The Day the University Changed.” Conservation OnLine:1–20. http://cool.conservation-us.org/byauth/silverman/day/

Silverman, Randy, Miranda Bliss, Hal Erickson, Niki Fidopiastis, Jan Francl, BarryKnight, Kirk Lively, Jirı Neuvirt, Deborah Novotny, and Nicholas Yeager. 2008.Comparing Mass Drying and Sterilization Protocols for Water-Damaged Books.Natchitoches, LA: National Center for Preservation Technology and Training.1–13.

Sinclair, Gwen. 2007. “The Flood at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa Library.”DttP: Documents to the People 35 (3): 31–5.

Skinner, Robert E. 2007. “‘Nor Any Drop to Drink’: New Orleans Libraries in theAftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” Public Library Quarterly 25 (3): 179–87.doi:10.1300/J118v25n03_15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Spivak, Steven M. 2009. “University Sources for Restoration Education Programs–PartTwo.” Cleaning & Restoration March: 2–3.

Topper, Elisa F. 2011. “After Hurricane Katrina: The Tulane Recovery Project.” NewLibrary World 112 (1/2): 45–51. doi:10.1108/03074801111100445

Walsh, Betty. 1997. Salvage Operations for Water Damaged Archival Collec-tions: A Second Glance. WAAC Newsletter 19 (2). http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn/wn19/wn19-2/wn19-206.html

Waters, Peter. 1993. “Procedures for Salvage of Water Damaged Library Materi-als.” In Extracts from unpublished revised text. Washington, DC: Preserva-tion Policy and Services Division National Archives & Records Administration.http://cool.conservation-us.org/bytopic/disasters/primer/waters.html

Wellheiser, Johanna, and Jude Scott. 2002. An Ounce of Prevention: Integrated Dis-aster Planning for Archives, Libraries, and Record Centres. 2nd ed. Lanham,MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

APPENDIXSURVEY INSTRUMENT

Question 1: Please select your job role in an archival institution or a restora-tion company (Select one answer).

◦ Archivist.◦ Conservator.◦ Preservationist.◦ Project Coordinator or Senior Project Manager (Restorer).◦ Project Manager or Assistant Project Manager (Restorer).◦ Restoration Supervisor or Restoration Technician (Restorer).

Question 2: Please select the U.S. region you work in (Select one answer).

◦ Northeast U.S.◦ Southeast U.S.◦ North Central U.S.◦ South Central U.S.◦ Northwest U.S.◦ Southwest U.S.◦ AL or HI.◦ Outside U.S.

Question 3: What is the highest level of education you completed? (Selectone answer).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

296 C. E. Passley

◦ HS School/GED.◦ Associate’s degree.◦ Bachelor’s degree.◦ Master’s degree.◦ Doctoral degree.

Question 4: What is the subject matter of your highest earned degree? Do notrespond if you selected high school/GED in question 3 (Select one answer).

◦ Science or math.◦ Engineering or technology.◦ Business.◦ Social science.◦ Humanities.◦ Law.◦ Medicine.◦ Other.

Question 5: How many years of experience do you have working in yourjob role? (Select one answer).

◦ None.◦ Some but less than 3 years.◦ At least 3 years but less than 6 years.◦ At least 6 years but less than 12 years.◦ At least 12 years but less than 20 years.◦ 20 years or more.

Question 6: Which organization certification(s) did you complete? (Select allthat apply).

◦ No certification(s).◦ Academy of Certified Archivists (Certified Archivist).◦ Restoration Industry Association (RIA).◦ IICRC.◦ Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA).◦ Other.

Question 7:An Archival Disaster Restoration Body of Knowledge (BoK) will providerestoration professionals essential knowledge to manage smoke and fire,water loss, and microbial disasters in archival institutions without assistancefrom archival institution staff.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Instructions:

Rank each training topic importance from very unimportant to very importantfor restoration professionals to learn prior to entering an archival institutionpost-disaster with restoration workers.

Part A.1 An Archival Disaster Restoration BoK training topic importanceranking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

298 C. E. Passley


Instructions:



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4



Instructions:



Question 10:Instructions: Please answer questions.

Part B. Short Questions

Which books, articles, and studies would you like in a bibliography for anArchival Disaster Restoration Body of Knowledge?

Which archival materials and chemicals are unsafe for restoration pro-fessionals and restoration workers entering and handling items stored in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

300 C. E. Passley

special collections and archives, after smoke and fire, water loss, and micro-bial disasters?

Which equipment, tools, or supplies should restoration professionals includein their general tool bag or vehicle for archival disaster restoration in specialcollections and archives, after smoke and fire, water loss, and microbialdisasters?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

0:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4